Here’s the problem: Trump is out to maximize environmental damage and the US Green Party runs as spoilers. Let’s look at three scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Harris: 1001 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 0 votes

Harris wins


Scenario 2:

Harris: 1000 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 1 vote

Tied vote, which goes to the courts and Congress, putting Trump in power


Scenario 3:

Harris: 999 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 2 votes

Trump wins outright


This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward. Republicans know this, which is why they’re the ones funding the Green Party.

And that’s why the European Greens want Jill Stein to step down now — they get that what she’s doing is making it easier to elect a fascist bent on environmental destruction.

  • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    Oh fuck off.

    Does it feel dirty as fuck? Of course it does, but if you genuinely think there is no difference at all in climate outlook between the two then I have a billion oil jacks to sell you.

    It might be the lesser of two evils, but every tonne less we emit is one less we need to remove.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      21 days ago

      Scientists have been warning us for years that we are getting past the point of no return. Red and blue party have both led us there and not give a fuck about climate until the pressure was on losing votes because of it. Under the current climate crisis the government isn’t even considering banning private jets and yachts to keep pleasing the 0.01%